BOARD00463

• Board Meeting Date: 11/25/1996
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Summary of Comments to USSR's Aug 30 1996 Draft Report; 10 Year Review of Trinidad Project Operations
USSR Conclusion i USSR Recommendation I COLORADO i PRWCD I KANSAS
------------------------------------------r------------------------------------------~----------------------------r---------------------~-------------------------__________
A. R~lIover is a de'parture, but no effect on operation~ when I Do not change OP to allow rollover I no comment I no comment I Agree
practlcedt"S"cause Model f.:Ind$ nollh~n irrigated. . 0" 1 I I I
------------------------------------------r-------------------------------------------r---------------------------~r---------------------r-------------------------__________
B. Storage ofwi1'lle, water under dJrect flow tights may be a: "Storage of winlel water under the district {sic, should be f rw comment I no comment I Such storage would be departure from intent of
departuf~ from pre-Project ptannlng moOOl, but "not: direct?} fWw tighl.sln any of \he irrigation capac:ity is an~e.d I ] lOP, citing. USSR 1988 report. ~eed rellable
necessanly a departure from the OP: I by the OP and they should be amended to c1anfy thai thiS IS I I I demonstratIon of no downstream Injury before
. allowed. . I I amendment.
------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------~----"-----------------------~---------------------~-----------------------------------
C. Allocation of excess space to fishery and filling and I Incorporate "temporary amendment" into OP and modify to 11/26/96 amendment is not viewed as I does not effect District I Delete as outside study period, premature to
maintaining th.is ~0?1 "will not inte~re with District water I provide ."volume fo~ volume eXChange at t~e mouth of the I temporary, it Is still acceptable to t therefore no further I discuss further until operational history under the
supply nor will It mcrease depletions to downstream ..I PurgatoIre considermg conveyance losses on all reaches. I Colorado as adopted. I comment, other than to note' new amendment and adequate analysis of
users: 1 for f exchange benefits users below JMR, should t Change point of reference to inflow to JMR. lithe amendment does not I Purgatoire R. losses.
modify to account for differences In losses. I I I indicate that it Is temporary. 1

D~St~~t;r-~~~;;;did-n~~-s~iii;;_;~;;g;~-;X-~;;~ftR;d~~--st~~~;;-all~~~~-to-1200;f~;;;u~;d-;ftD~-~~-;;d-u~-;ii;;;;~-t~-1200;ftOb~d--t~--;d-ucti~~--~tR;;;,~~~9-5--cl;-jj~it-i;-:p;;~~tu~;~--;;;;d

20,OOOaf under Model Storage right in 1992. Stock release I Trinidad gage. Anow rale of reservoir release up to rate of I unless impact of Hoehne curtailment J volumetric limitation. Clarify I adequate analysis of l!!ffed on downstream userS.
never exceeded 1500 af, but stock water allowance Including' inflow without counting as stored water. Stock volumetric I better explained. Clarify release on I that stockwater not counted I
gains did exceed in 1964 and 1992. Allowance for Hoehne I allowance includes both releases and river gains measured I volumetric basis better to say total of I against storage limits I
ended. I at Trinidad gage. I bypasses may not exceed 1500 aflyr I. I

E~T~~I;~;;i~;~d-djd~~i";;~~d-19.71i.-us8R1985tR;d~i;~i-l~~~~-a-~;;9;t~-19A99~-d-el;t;-j"a~dtIN~-;;;;th;;19A99-.;~;s-j;rig~;di;tcj;~ify--ih~t-;~;~g;-ri~it~R;;j;;-;;~~~r~;I~~t~~h~th;t;;~;g;1n-;;a-~

survey shows 1~,3~3 .acres, PRWCD 1994 survey shows I classjficall~n requirements; identify and d~signate irrigable I anyone year, but .district irrigated: applies to different lands I other than 1985 and 1994 is unreported.
19,395 acres being Irrigated including otoor than Class 1,2 I lands by dItch; develop procedure to verIfy no more than I acreage under allocatlOrT contract may I from year to year, so long as I
& 3. "Total allowable irrigated acreage" should be reduced to I total is receiving an allocation or actually irrigated. I be higher so long as sufficient acres I total actually irrigated Is I
offset water rights not acquired by PRWCD. I I fallowed each year. r below limit. t
r------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------------~--------------------________~---------------------~------------------------___________
F. Operations have not resulted In increase in depletions in ] Determine real time irrigation requirement -I District must do if required until OP I Current procedures are I Analysis of pre and post-project depletions at
Project area and no effect on downstream users. I I amended to no longer require. I sufficient, disagree with I Thatcher gage is inconsistent with Model decree
I I r USSR's recommendation I a~d Kansas' p~ferted study method. Mass
I I I I dlagrart:15 are Inadequate for showing new
I : 1 ! depletions from project, need to analyze stateline
It. . effects
Ir------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~--------------------________~---------------------~-----------------------____________
G. PRWCD has not attained optimal beneficial use of water I Determine transit losses for each ditch to allocate water and I District must do if required until OP I Current procedures are' no comment
supply by nol determining individual ditch losses and limiting I administer deliveries in accordance with allocations. I amended to no longer require. : sufficient, disagree with I .
ditc~ diversions to allocations based on real time irrigation I [ 1 USSR's recommendation !
requIrement I I I .
------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------~----------------------------~---------------------~-----------------------------------
H. City of Trinidad may change project water rights to M&IIAmend OP to allow City to use project water rights forM&11 no comment I no COmment IAgree that change Should be considered, still
uses pursuant to Colorado water law wIthout injury to I purposes. I I : need "appropriate analysis" Showing no
downstream users. I [ I I downstream injury.
------------------------------------------r-------------------------------------------r----------------------------r---------------------r----------------___________________
I. Conditions (d) and (e) for reregulation of summer flow I Amend OP to allow implement conditions (d) and (e) with a I OK to add clarification, but we believe I Agree, bul water court I Premature, conditions (d) and (e) vague, need
could be implemented through substitute supply plans that I water court approved substitute supply plan. I District can already do this. Delete I approval is nol required for I specific proposals from District and adequate
prevent depletion to JMR Inflows. I llanguage re water court approval I sub. supply plan I analysis by USSR or otherwise.
t r merely need to comply with Colorado I I
I I law. . .

...._'..,...C-wl'""'-E"""....SA$\TI<INI>'O\l"'......'.n..